Contents

Please do not leave sarcastic comments on my talk page. They are not appreciated.--Poetlister 09:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The comments were genuine, not sarcastic. I apologize for phrasings that left you feeling they were sarcastic. -- Thekohser 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Looks like Poetlister got nabbed about four months after whining about "sarcasm". What an utter waste of time it is, when people can't be honest about who they are. -- Thekohser 15:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request: I have not sinned here. Have I? Thekohser 14:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Is any progress being made on this request? It has been over 3 days since the request was made. -- Thekohser 13:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I continue to wonder what is being done about this unblock request? It has been demonstrated on the German Wikipedia, the English Wikisource, the English Wikiversity, and on Wikimedia Commons, that I am decidedly not a "globally banned user", no matter how much Jimbo Wales (circa May 2010) wishes that were so. I would like to be unblocked here, as well. Thank you. -- Thekohser (using 68.87.42.110 16:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC))

Wikibooks also just unblocked. There is no global ban, in effect. There is, however, a global lock and politics at meta, where the lock is determined, is arcane. Because of the global lock, Thekohser cannot log in and directly request unblock, but can only edit as IP. Any bureaucrat can delink the local account from the global account by renaming it to a different name, then naming it back to the original, which is how this was managed on the other wikis, and this was done, on Wikibooks, prior to making an unblock decision. I recommend the process. I will note that Jimbo, in blocking here, did not act to prevent Talk page access, he left that open, and at the beginning of May, when a global lock was first established, it was removed and a steward went around to all the local wikis to create local blocks, specifically so that each local community could review the issue and make their own decision. However, May 30, Mike.lifeguard re-established the global lock, based on "discussions." Asked, it became clear that this was off-wiki discussion, with unnamed participants, thus the lock violated steward policy requiring transparency. Mike has since retired, amidst some speculation that this was related (the timing makes it look so). Pathoschild, another steward, the one who went around setting the local blocks in most cases, has said that there was no consensus for Mike's action.

There have been no negative consequences from any local 'crat delinking the account, allowing normal local process to ensue. In every case where this was done, in every case where local unblock was actively considered, such as at Wikiversity and Wikibooks, the consensus has been to unblock; in those two cases the level of consensus was 75%. It was pointed out at Wikiversity that it should require consensus to block (when it's seriously contested), not consensus to unblock.

(There is an exception when a block is by a steward, and a block by Jimbo is roughly equivalent. However, subsequent events showed that the principle of local autonomy is extremely important, and there has been no objection coming from Jimbo or the WMF to the local unblocks. If done with respect for legitimate WMF concerns, I expect no problems. That does not mean that I believe that Thekohser will necessarily behave properly in all respects, he can be impulsive and sometimes disruptive, but that it should be easy to handle this if he is unblocked, there are many users who are somewhat disruptive, sometimes, and who are not blocked. Generally, the wikis which have unblocked have sufficiently benefited in terms of positive content contributions to make the labor of "supervision" -- which is really very little -- worthwhile.)

Please consider the unblock request of Thekohser and unblock or deny unblock, according to the welfare of the local wiki. There has been concern that Thekohser will use the local wikis as a platform to criticize the WMF and other users; however, that can easily be handled on a case-by-case basis, this user is not likely to escape notice! --Abd 17:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Question: What is the difference between having a repeated unblock request go ignored for 4 months, and a block?Answer: The sound of one hand clapping.
-- Thekohser, using 68.87.42.110 17:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Greg, I understand your impatience. However, flooding Recent Changes and creating a disruptive section on your Talk page isn't the way to address it. It could lead to a Talk page semiprotection about as easily as to some serious consideration of the unblock. You know how to get support for unblock, and that flood isn't part of it. You also have email access here, don't you? In any case I've added support for the unblock request, but I'm not active here, not yet, and all I'm doing is suggesting some serious consideration. If anyone looking at this needs links to support what I wrote above with the support, they can easily be supplied, it was all solid.

The problem at this wiki may be lack of administrative support, and perhaps we can examine that and help. --Abd 17:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what WQ's blocking/unblocking procedures are exactly, but the standard procedure on most wikis is asking the blocking administrator first for a review (Jimbo Wales, in this case) and if no reply, then going to WQ's Administrator's Noticeboard (WQ:AN) to see if there's a consensus to remove the block. What's strange though is the lack of any administrator response after 4 months, even for a small project like WQ. Unfortunately, this project has always been small, and it is difficult to get any response. The last time I tried to ask for a block review for someone, they ignored me and archived the request. I guess I should ask Jimbo if he's willing to unblock first per process's sake and give him a day or two to respond before moving the request to AN. Just in case anyone asks, is there a diff where Jimbo renounced the global block and let the local communities decide your fate? Ripberger 05:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have made a request for the blocking administrator to look at your block. If he does not respond, I will ask for consensus at WQ:AN in a day or two. I hope this helps and sorry for your treatment here so far. Ripberger 06:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize there was a discussion at the Village Pump about this. Ah, well. C'est la vie! I have your talkpage watched if you need anything. Ripberger 07:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that I still need assistance getting this community to even address the matter, Ripberger. -- Thekohser, currently using 68.87.42.110 13:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

I've weighed in at the Village Pump (thankfully, I haven't gained any weight!). Ripberger 01:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, methinks that the WQ Community isn't going to do anything about this, unfortunately. On the English Wikipedia, there would have already been a huge AN/I discussion about unblocking you, splitting the AN/I discussion off onto it's own noticeboard, much sound and fury, calls for compassion, eventually a deal struck in which you get unblocked and then the deal is broken off, another major dramatic discussion on AN/I, another deal to unblock you made only to be broken again, and finally you blocked again indefinitely for a small faux pas or minor smart-alecky remark. On this wiki, we can't even get one thread about you going. If PL were still around, we could have at least seen the dramatic discussions about unblocking you being made by her alone. I do miss the old days at WQ. If there's anything else you need, let me know. I'll check back every few days or so. Ripberger 06:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The improperly formed "global ban" that was fabricated by Jimbo Wales has been overturned. Thus, I request to return to good standing on English Wikiquote. —This unsigned comment is by Thekohser (talk • contribs) .